If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Isaac - True North would most likely have a winning claim against the Village...at the very least for a violation of a contract rep (with the carve out that Iíve never seen the Contract) and for recission. But, you think it would also have a title claim on a zoning endorsement and policy?

Not having seen the policy, my guess is they would likely have a claim. I also agree that True North is still in a position to win against the Village should it come to that. The ruling on the motion to dismiss is not surprising, and the residents still have an uphill battle. My question is how long True North is willing to fight, regardless of the likelihood of success. Should True North pull out, it would be wise for the Village to refund the purchase price IMO.

About 20 people opposing the Gas station attended the meeting and time was deferred to a few key speakers to streamline the talking points.The section of the meeting began with President Mc Ginley stating that litigation from another party was threatened today, if the board voted in favor of refunding TrueNorth the purchase price of the property. She didn't say too much more but wanted everyone to know this information. (No one seems to know who this is.) All of the speakers and the board were respectful and it was a good exchange. Attorney Greg Mathews first pointed out, that the refund would only be for the price of the property and that the village would get the land back.

Several speakers had some great points highlights were:

1.If the Village signs this agreement, be sure that True North can not come back and litigate against the village or its residents.
2. True North knew full well what they were getting into -
the court ruled on Dec. 11, 2017 that the residents have standing to proceed with litigation and True North closed on the property Dec. 20th, 2017.
3. We know True North is getting a capital gains tax deferment by closing on this property at the end of 2017 and that's why they closed. They made more on their tax break then what litigation will cost them.
4. Why would the Village take back this property unless someone made them a promise that is has not been disclosed?
5. There were only two contingencies to this deal. 1. a liquor license granted and 2. A special Use granted they got both - True North has no grounds to go after the Village and they closed well into the litigation knowing there were issues.
6. If True North wants out, then undo this deal NOW, and get the land back NOW - Why go into more litigation and begin construction and then buy the land back.
7. What shape will the property be in when the lawsuit is over? Will the trees be cut down and the station be half built? Will the village be on the hook to demolish another gas station?
8. The Village says it "wants control of what goes in there." The zoning codes will dictate what can go there, and let's face it, the reason we got here is because the Village controlled this deal and it didn't go so well.
9. We have educated intelligent and committed people who are engineers, lawyers, real estate and acquisition people who are in the opposition group who want to help the village work through this and get out of this deal, let us help you. Let's work together to resolve this.

The board moved to vote and did not make any amendments to their resolution, except to clarify - in exchange for giving TrueNorth their money back they would get the property back.

The Board voted: There were no motions to add in any of the suggested language. 2 NO votes (John Kenwood, and Enright) and 5 in favor of giving True North their money back if the residents represented by "Protect Glen Ellyn" win their lawsuit.